In what studio? The only need for faster sync speeds in a studio is to minimise the ambient, the studio is the one place where you have complete control of the ambient.

Such a slow sync speed makes it difficult to shoot with wide apertures which I sometimes would prefer using. Especially since I have such a small studio space which limits the amount of background blur I can do at higher F-stops.

That makes no sense, in your studio why can't you get the ambient below 1/200, 100iso and f1.2, or around EV8-9? I can understand not being able to turn your flashes down low enough in a small space at that aperture, but I can't understand not controlling your ambient.

Controlling ambient is pretty easy. I have a small home studio and the flash power is too high. I solved this by getting a lee ND filter system, but it makes it harder to focus as the view finder is dark, plus some introduce a color cast that needs to be corrected in post. The higher sync speed would've been cool to freeze action for strobes with a long flash duration, my profoto D1's are pretty good but they aren't the fastest. I just would've like to have see something better than 1/250 to push the tech forward in this area. They're pushing it forward in so many other areas.

I wonder why they aren't able to increase the flash sync speed past 1/200. Would the only reason for this be that the shutter / mirror assembly isn't fast enough? If that is the case and the camera has a relatively slow mirror, maybe we shouldn't hope for faster fps in crop modes either.

1/200 is very disappointing for a studio body, where sync speeds are important.

Thanks Jon - do you fit the WA adaptor directly to the lens or is the lens fitted with a UV filter too?

I fitted mine directly to the lens. If you have a UV filter with threads on the outside to accept additional filters I'm sure it would work. However, the Lee Foundation kit can accept two filters, so you could put a Lee UV + ND filter if you'd like.

Very informative video. I don't mind hearing about other tech instead of having a myopic canon only view. Thanks for posting, now when selecting another camera or system, I can be fully informed as to whats out there.

I come to Canon rumors because in addition to being a Canon shooter, the user interface of the forum is much nicer on the eyes and easier to follow along than sites like DPreview or Fred Miranda.

What I'd like to see is a cell-chipset. Even if it's on the slow end, say ~1-5Mbps upload, it'd be awesome if it starts dumping the photos immediately to a cloud service. Furthermore, if your computer was on same cloud and automatically downloads them, good part of the photos would be on your computer by the time you get there. Especially if it's fast LTE connection, it'd be only few seconds per picture uploaded, so apart from high fps sports, anything would be uploaded real time.

Of course one problem would be the battery life, but that can be sorted out way or another.

The market is saturated. Simple as that.There are only so many people who want a DSLR and even less of those who need one.It is like smarphones. Everyone who can afford one, has one already and the only way to go is to expand the market by lowering the prices. All the phones in the market are smarter than their users already. Complicating the products further will not increase the sales.

Nobody's tried doing the Steve Jobs (R.I.P) thing on DSLRs.Like making an elegant design with a recognizable logo that defines you as a high-end person. Or making a graphical user inteface that could actually make you understand what you are doing when you are taking your photos. That would catalog your shots automatically in web resolution and in printable resolution or whatever –and share the ones you want to share in a page format you have chosen on a specific site.

Nobody's thought the production line all the way from the snobfactor to the shared product.

The market is saturated because nobody's innovating with the consumers' needs in mind.Like-minded engineers and photographers are trying to impress each other and no real advances are being made.

Camera makers gave the mass market up to the smartphones.A stupid move.

Its telling that just as millions of people are taking and sharing millions more pictures and videos than ever before in the history of man DSLRs sales are into their second year of double digit sales drop.

DSLRs lost out big when it came to communicating the results: real time storytelling is the thing to help people do. What you are doing and what is happening - right here right now. That's what people want. More than anything (better sensor, low iso, more megapix) to capture the masses DSLRs need to offer:

1. WifiWell working, efficient wifi solutions that can upload pictures easy, fast and reliable to the web or a preferred network.

With my ipad and iphone I can send to Instagram, Smugmug, Flickr, Twitter, Blogger and Facebook at will in the resolution I want and with whatever titles and edits I prefer. With a touch on the screen its out there in no more than seconds...

The wifi on my 70D and its so poor and awkward and slow that I still have to "test" before leaving home to be sure I can get the pictures from my camera to my ipad and/or iphone. Switching between them is insanely difficult!

2. GPSMy bike has it. My phone has it. Hell, even my shoes and my keys have it??!! Please remember to have the option to put country, city and street names in those RAW files automatically - thank you. My phone does that too you know...

To the tens and tens of millions of people who have embraced photography within the last few years this is what matters most. DSLR are not even worth thinking about before they can do what most people think is "basic" functionality for any modern photo/video - and do it with elegance, efficiency and ease.

I wholeheartedly agree with both of you guys. They really should slap an iPhone style back that allows for these features. I'm sure the processors in DSLR's are lagging way behind the quad core SOC's in phones, that have the wifi/GPS etc.. built into the chip, and we know the software user interface is sorely outdated. Hardware companies are typically not very good at software, including Sony.

I used this company to put 4 Profoto strobes in a 1650 case. Not the cheapest solution but it turned out great. I drove to their office and dropped off a couple of the D1's for them to make the holes perfect. They have different density foams to choose from.

I'll be honest I really don't care for video features if I want to do video I'd buy a dedicated video camera. for stills I would prefer 1/250 flash sync (or even faster). A few more MP to get better resolution and better noise handling.

They gotta do better than 1/250 at this point. Nikon has been doing 1/250 for a while, they have to differentiate and go higher.

The 6D's 1/160 flash sync really sucks, and the 1/200 of the 5d3 is probably not much better.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I'd rather have a more focused picture taking camera. I think they've gotten away from it and focused on video too much. Do what Sony did and make different focused versions for those that want them.

I want a studio body with fast shutter/flash sync(not HSS), low iso, high DR, high megapixel

Unless you are using them 3 or more days a week, sell them while they are new. The printers do a self cleaning when turned on, and clog if left on, which means they will use even more ink. If left off for a few days, they will clog and waste a lot of ink to clean them.

They generally only come with starter ink cartridges, so you'll need to replace them after just a few prints. It can use half those starter cartridges just to set it up initially. Buy a couple of extra sets to start.

The printers are free, but ink can cost you big bucks. Check out the cost of a new set of inks before deciding.

I have a Epson 3880, and use Cone ink tanks and 1 liter refills which cuts the cost a lot, but even so, its expensive. Still, its a fraction of the price of Epson inks.

The Pro 100 is dye ink based. Dye ink looks nice, but is not long lasting, and not water proof. It does not clog as easily, and there are compatible inks that work well. Cost is $100 per ink set, they won't last long.

The Pro-10 uses pigment based inks, which will have a long print life, and are more water resistant. They are what you should use if you want serious prints. The down side is more clogging, $130 / set of inks or $15 each. Those small ink tanks will not last long. You will notice that more inks are used in a set. This overcomes the inherent color pop advantage of dye inks, and provides sublime B&W prints.